Saturday, October 13, 2007

discipleship, the gospel, and stuff ...

My friend Geoff Matheson pulls together some excellent quotes and then asks the tough question. The first is from Jonathan Brink on Jesus and Leadership Structure (I'll use a larger excerpt from Brink's post than Matheson did because it is so good).
When Jesus said the provocative words, “Come follow me,” there must have been a chill that ran up the spine of the disciple’s backs. Imagine the moment. Ordinary people being called by an extraordinary man. This was the man who healed people, restoring their dignity and inviting them out of oppression. He touched lepers without harm, turned water into wine and caused the fish to flood the nets. To follow Him was an epic call, a moment to be part of something good. What did He see that they didn’t? His very invitation invited them into a larger mission of restoration.

But imagine for a second, after calling his disciples to follow him, he proceeded to invite them to come to the local synagogue on Sunday morning for a couple of hours and Wednesday night for another couple of hours. Forget following him around and watching Him do things. And when they got to there, he sat them down and led them through a couple of songs. Everyone sat in the same direction facing Jesus as they listened to him speak from behind a small upright box. The message was on average an hour long, tightly scripted with an introductory joke to arouse the crowd and was primarily about how to “not sin”. It usually included three points, a story from His personal life, and a summary to wrap it all up. He always finished with a challenge to his disciples to do better and closed with another song. At some point in the process he passed a large basket around expecting them to put a little something in to pay the rent and help build a larger meeting place. The reality was that those in setup were tired of unpacking and packing up each time they met in this rented building. A new, obviously larger building just made sense. As long as those in the crowd showed up, the disciples were good. Invite their friend and they were better. Serve on a committee and they were golden. Under this scenario you have to imagine the original call to “Come follow me” seems to lose its impact, doesn’t it?

Matheson then pulls this piece from Alan Hirsch.

We are all familiar with the gospel stories where Jesus selects a band of disciples, lives his life with them, ministers with them, and mentors them. This approach to the formation of followers was common in the Israel of Jesus’ day. Most rabbis would initiate and develop their schools of thought through similar means. It was this life-on-life phenomenon that facilitated the transfer of information and ideas into concrete historical situations.

Finally Matheson hits us with the big question: "What does Jesus' model of discipleship best look like in contemporary culture?" I like that. It's an excellent question. I think the answer is that it looks the same as it did 2000 years ago, i.e., it looks like the Kingdom of God.

Many wrestle with what that looks like but more and more I thinking our wrestling is inappropriate. Jesus said, as recorded in Matthew 4, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables."

Jacob Hantla quotes Mark Dever on the Gospel.

The good news is that the one and only God, who is holy, made us in his image to know him. But we sinned and cut ourselves off from him. In his great love, God became a man in Jesus, lived a perfect life, and died on the cross, thus fulfilling the law himself and taking on himself the punishment for the sins of all those who would ever turn and trust in him. He rose again from the dead, showing that God accepted Christ's sacrifice and that God's wrath against us had been exhausted. He now calls us to repent of our sins and trust in Christ alone for our forgiveness. If we repent of our sins and trust in Christ, we are born again into a new life, an eternal life with God.

Now I'm no Mark Dever. Although I have never met him, heard him speak, nor read much of his writings, I have the perception that he is a godly man. But I have to say this particular definition while good, falls a little short. Jesus went around teaching, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing, i.e., demonstrating the gospel of the kingdom (Mt 4.23; 9.35). The Gospel is what Dever stated and more. And it is this more that is the answer to Matheson's question. If we seek first the Kingdom of God, all the rest comes together (Mt 6.33).

Technorati Tags: ,

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rick,

Thanks for the nod but I wanted to add a comment on your bio. You said, "If you get something out of it, great. If not, don't complain, you got what you paid for." That is just hilarious my friend. Much love.

Jacob Hantla said...

While there are many other aspects that can be included in the gospel there is little superfluous facts in Dever's description. One can believe all about Jesus' life but if they are missing the facts given in Dever's definition they have no gospel at all. One can know believe and trust oneself wholly to Dever's definition and miss the rest and, while missing some great stuff, still know the good news.

I'm not totally sure I "get" your post. I tried. Does my above paragraph fall short in its understanding of your point?

ricki said...

Jacob - I think every word of Dever is right on. I just think he left off some key words.

My intent was to say that the words of Dever is a base but missing the Kingdom of God aspect. With that added, the many questions we might ask about how to live (e.g., the piece from Matheson) all falls into place.

Jacob Hantla said...

Rick- Can you give us an example of a short, simple statement of the gospel that would include all necessary aspects as you understand them. I'd like to try to understand what you're saying.

reftagger